Interpreting Ross

[Jamey Bryan]

**Bump**

I'm bumping this thread simply because I think it needs to be on the front page and I'm going to comment once I have the chance to talk to Kris (he's returned my call, family issues have prevented our talking).  I think this is, especially after playing three Ross courses this weekend(with varying degrees of modification/restoration....  Southern Pines, Mid Pines, and Pine Needles), the best thread going.

Jamey

[Mike_Young]

I hope this thread does not go in the unintended direction of suggesting that any of the architects I mentioned are right or wrong or are doing things better or worse than anyone else.  That was definitely not my intent.  As I said initially, the results I have seen have been uniformly very good from all of them.  My point (if I even had one) was that is seems almost inevitable that human traits will seep through in their work.  How could we expect anything else?  I believe Brad Klein has said that he can often tell who was Ross's construction foreman by looking at what was built on the ground.  Aren't we really just seeing the second coming of that same phenomenon?

Ed Oden,
I don't think anyone could interpret what you have said as suggesting anyone you mentioned was right or wrong. 
I have watched one "Ross restoration " and the process closely for the last few years.  These restorations can get out of hand. 
Relying on original drawings and having a club sell it by telling everyone we are going back to the original drawings is a little confusing.
My theory has always been to do the least that can be done but I constantly see "oversell".  All it takes is a "deer in the headlights" supt., a contractor that has been building high budget "signature courses" and a couple of scratch players and a couple of frat boys that have seen a few new resorts telling the designer what they want....when all of this  is allowed to come into play then there is no denying you can have a nice project and thus there is nothing to be gained in arguing with the average golfer member.  They could care less if it is real Ross or interpretation....what I have found that really stands out for the average club member is that the cart paths are really nice and the contractor is going to shape Tiger's putting green.   

[BCrosby]

I thought Tom Doak nailed this issue a couple of years ago. He said at the time that any restoration is necessarily and unavoidably an interpretation. It's a matter of whose interpretation you like best.

Supporting that idea, as Mike Young notes, is that there is no way to know for sure how a Ross hole played or looked in circa 1925. Even the best documented ODG courses involve a degree of guess-work when being restored. As much as we might not want that to be the case.

In the end TD (if he still holds such views) and MY are both right. Restorations of Ross's or anyone else's courses always involve - at some level - the design preferences of the restorer. He does not operate objectively and the rules are usually not very clear.

Bob    

[Kris Spence]

I hope this thread does not go in the unintended direction of suggesting that any of the architects I mentioned are right or wrong or are doing things better or worse than anyone else.  That was definitely not my intent.

Ed, I certainly didn't take it that way.  I think you bring up a good point about the subtle or not so subtle differences in restorative work.  Its important to understand that there was a wide range of people building these courses for Ross after he developed the drawings, some experienced in construction of a golf course and others not so much or none at all.  Therefore, the finished product back in the 20's so to speak would have differences, soil types, grass types, construction budgets, owner mentality/intent, weather events, timing of construction are a few other variables that affected the final look and feel of the individual courses.

As far as greens go, if I have the original drawing and I can confirm  the green was built to the drawing either through whats left on the ground, or through photos or some other record/memory available, I will restore that green as close to that plan as I can get. Because of changes in grasses, equipment, agronomic conditions and significantly faster green speeds today, I have to make  adjustments at times to accommodate these things.  I try to restore the golf that Ross envisioned not some museum piece that's not functionable.

#3 Green at Carolina is a great example of an original Ross green that remained  prior to the project but one that had lost considerable surface area to encroachment along the sides and in the corners (@ 40%).  The spine in the rear of the green and  to either side of it were completely off the green and in the rough.  It was clearly evident through ground features where the original green extended to, you could see the fill pad edge,  however, I confirmed this by digging and probing the original construction to find the limits of the green.  The current hole location in the back right corner of the green did not exist and was too steep 5-7% to leave it the way it was so I extended the green 2  feet wider to the back right of the spine and steepened the right side of the spine to soften the slope and provide a cupping area of 2 to 3 1/2 %.  That little area was extremely tough back in the 20's with a green running 4 or 5 and I think you will agree it remains that way today.  The rest of the green was excavated and restored based on what we were able to detect from the putting surface contours.  Did Ross build those little subtle humps and bumps that I restored within the green, I cant confirm it in any way, there were not plans or photos to support it.  Other than the fact the green had not be reconstructed I have to presume they were original.  At the same time, I fully understand the effects of topdressing and maintenance on a green over 75 years so I  take that into account when restoring the spines, swales, bumps or flashed edges etc.

David, I take not offense at what you say, I just don't see it and the greens at Sedgefield are vastly different than the other two courses you mention. Myers has more spines than the other two combined however most of them enter the green in the center back portion of the green splitting the back half.  At Sedgefield there are two greens with spines entering the green from the sides or mid way back on holes #6 and #13.  Actually, I would have like to seen more spines or ridges coming deeper into those greens, the punchbowl green on the 9th may of benefited from a bit more intrusion of a spine into the front center section.  Most everything else are rolls and bulges along the edges or within the green itself.  The two par 3's on the back were built from his plans and photos or from what remained in the ground, the 12th is a two tier green that curves because of the severe back slope behind the green and the 16th is a horse shoe green around a center front depression, resembles a toilet seat.  Now if I can get the PGA Tour boys to stop putting the Sunday hole location in the bowl on 16 that little hole will come alive during the final round.

[Bruce Wellmon]

Kris,
     Would you comment on your process, findings and results at (my home club) CC of Spartanburg?
I have been told there is "no club history" re early documents from 1908. Is it known who actually did the original work? Is there even a hint of Ross? I am thrilled with the end product. Thanks.

[Doug Wright]

Great thread topic! I have had an interest in Ross for some time and have been fortunate to have played several courses that have been renovated (eg Minikahda pre- and post Prichard renovation and Wilmington Muny post-Prichard renovation--see the Courses by Ciountry Course Description for a great discussion of that renovation), otherwise modified (Oak Hill East) or are in need of renovation (Wellshire GC, a muny in Denver). I have the Ross drawings of Wellshire (completed around 1926) and the bones of the course are generally still there. Ross apparently didn't visit Wellshire, designed it from a topo map and relied on one of his lieutenants and local contractors to complete the work; that has to affect the end result though from what I can see there was pretty faithful attention to detail with the slopes of many of the greens and the original bunkering. If anyone has a few spare $$ lying around and wants to turn a Ross into a gem here's your opportunity... 

One thing that Kris mentioned above is recovering green surface area that has been lost due to encroachment. This is something I've observed both with Ron Prichard's work at Minikahda and recent work by our excellent superintendent at Denver CC that can produce amazing results with not a lot of effort (at least not a lot of apparent effort!). The pin positions that have been recovered through this work are terrific. Might be something to consider for your course if you're so inclined and it needs it.   

[Richard Hetzel]

Are there any Ross courses left that HAVE NOT been restored?  There must be one somewhere.

Tom,

What about that nice little 9 holer Elk Rapids in your own back yard. Has that been touched?

[Richard Hetzel]

I'm going to be playing Rackham (Detroit Park District) in two weeks. I'll bring my camera and post some photos. Does anyone know if that Ross course is as pure as many say it is? I have heard that the opening hole was changed to widen the highway, but that otherwise it is untouched. Can anyone vouch for that?

I played Rackham last fall with another GCA member. I want to say they lost more than just 1 hole with the highway construction. Inside the clubhouse they have an old routing framed on the wall from which you may be able to discern what exactly is missing from the current layout.

[Richard Hetzel]

Bradley,

Ive  played  Rogell, Rackham and Rouge all  several times. The design interest at Rogell and at Rouge Park has always far exceeded same at Rackham

Rouge=  Dramatic elevation changes, variety ,challenge, great routing

Has is been proven that Ross designed Rouge Park? Fun course.


With the exception of the 3 newer holes near the water, would Shennecossett in Connecticut be one that was untouched? One has to wonder about the guys doing the shaping back then when Mr. Ross was not (or never as in many cases) on site to check their work as to if was correctly and seemlessly "aligned" with his original design intent.

[Mark_Fine]

Every "restoration" is an intrepretation.  Do you need a "Ross" expert to restore your Ross golf course?  The answer is NO.  But what you do need is someone who is passionate about his work and who is willing to take the time (usually a lot of it) to research the history and evolution of the course and to explain how it has evolved to where it is today.  In the past, there were only a handful of architects willing to take the time to study some of these dead guys to figure out what they did and why they did it (especially when it came to course specific research).  In the end, it still comes down to intrepretation.  That said, I don't care how much experience one has, it is hard to "restore a bunker" or "resurrect a green" from an old photo or drawing if you didn't take the time to find the old photo or drawing in the first place    What I have found is that once you do the heaving lifting (all the research) there some great shapers and contractors out there that do amazing restorative work (and very few of those need a fancy CAD drawing of what should be restored). A nice old photo will sometimes do!

Mark

 

[Roger Wolfe]

This is quickly becoming a Kris Spence thread!  Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Quick bunker question.  CGC has several greenside bunkers that have mounds on the far
side of the bunker from the fairway.  The front left bunker on #6, #4, #17 and #10 all
have this feature.  If a ball carries to the deepest part of the bunker, a right handed player
does not have a stance.  At MPCC I notice the bunkers are steep on the greenside edges,
but the front and back of every bunker taper back to the level of the rough except perhaps
on the right greenside bunker on #3 where the back side has a bit of slope to it.

Was this a change in your interpretation or a change requested by the greens/restoration
committee at MPCC?  CGC's are much more penal if you run long in the bunker, however,
the visual perspective of the bunkers from the fairway are much better.  CGC's look better,
but play tougher.

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

Very interesting topic to ponder.

I fully agree that you can see a designer's interpretation in a renovation and that every architect has a slightly different "look" and feel to their work.  I think this notion applies to Raynor restorations as well ...I have played 3 Silva courses and I can see commonalities in those courses that I don't see in other Raynor restorations.  

I wonder if it is as simple as how they move dirt?  Some painters are distinguishable by their brushstrokes, maybe some restorationists are distinguishable in the same fashion.  

I do think all of the work that you mentioned is excellent and especially so because the essence of Ross is not lost in the interpretation.  I am sure that if Monet and Renoir had been asked to paint a picture of the Mona Lisa, they would capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist.  I suspect golf restoration work is similar.

Bart

[Mike_Young]

Ed:

Very interesting topic to ponder.

I fully agree that you can see a designer's interpretation in a renovation and that every architect has a slightly different "look" and feel to their work.  I think this notion applies to Raynor restorations as well ...I have played 3 Silva courses and I can see commonalities in those courses that I don't see in other Raynor restorations.  

I wonder if it is as simple as how they move dirt?  Some painters are distinguishable by their brushstrokes, maybe some restorationists are distinguishable in the same fashion.  

I do think all of the work that you mentioned is excellent and especially so because the essence of Ross is not lost in the interpretation.  I am sure that if Monet and Renoir had been asked to paint a picture of the Mona Lisa, they would capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist.  I suspect golf restoration work is similar.

Bart

Bart,
What would Monet or Renoir done to the original Mona Lisa if they had been asked to restore it?  Would they "capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist."  If so it would no longer be the "Mona Lisa"...right?
AND for clarification..this is not an attack on anyone restoring DR.....just a point of view....

[Kris Spence]

Roger, the reason behind raising the back side varies from preventing surface drainage behind the bunker from entering  and or creating  visibility of the bunker from the landing area.  Visibility of the bunker surround not the sand.  The MPCC committee had no input or request on any bunkers, it mostly comes from different topographic or drainage situations.

Next time your up at Mimosa, take a look at the greenside bunkers on #5  and #18 left side, those bunkers have significant mounding down both sides, I was curious as to why Ross did that until we had a major rain event during the project, the surface flow at those green sites was incredible, the back side mounds redirected the water around the green and bunkers, they looked like islands.  Looking at the area around the 5th green you would never expect that type of surface flow, however, the 18th is located in the bottom of an old drainage swale so heavy rains will overcome upstream basins and diversion channels flooding that greensite.  I have a photo somewhere of the flood water  jumping over the bunker and hitting the greenside face, it was impressive. 

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

Very interesting topic to ponder.

I fully agree that you can see a designer's interpretation in a renovation and that every architect has a slightly different "look" and feel to their work.  I think this notion applies to Raynor restorations as well ...I have played 3 Silva courses and I can see commonalities in those courses that I don't see in other Raynor restorations.  

I wonder if it is as simple as how they move dirt?  Some painters are distinguishable by their brushstrokes, maybe some restorationists are distinguishable in the same fashion.  

I do think all of the work that you mentioned is excellent and especially so because the essence of Ross is not lost in the interpretation.  I am sure that if Monet and Renoir had been asked to paint a picture of the Mona Lisa, they would capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist.  I suspect golf restoration work is similar.

Bart

Bart,
What would Monet or Renoir done to the original Mona Lisa if they had been asked to restore it?  Would they "capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist."  If so it would no longer be the "Mona Lisa"...right?
AND for clarification..this is not an attack on anyone restoring DR.....just a point of view....

Mike, I agree it wouldn't be the exact same Mona Lisa...but if the Mona Lisa fell into disrepair and the best we could get was a repaired version by Monet that would be much better than no Mona Lisa at all.

Bart

[Mike_Young]

Ed:

Very interesting topic to ponder.

I fully agree that you can see a designer's interpretation in a renovation and that every architect has a slightly different "look" and feel to their work.  I think this notion applies to Raynor restorations as well ...I have played 3 Silva courses and I can see commonalities in those courses that I don't see in other Raynor restorations.  

I wonder if it is as simple as how they move dirt?  Some painters are distinguishable by their brushstrokes, maybe some restorationists are distinguishable in the same fashion.  

I do think all of the work that you mentioned is excellent and especially so because the essence of Ross is not lost in the interpretation.  I am sure that if Monet and Renoir had been asked to paint a picture of the Mona Lisa, they would capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist.  I suspect golf restoration work is similar.

Bart

Bart,
What would Monet or Renoir done to the original Mona Lisa if they had been asked to restore it?  Would they "capture the essence of the original but would have a point of view and "look" unique to them as an artist."  If so it would no longer be the "Mona Lisa"...right?
AND for clarification..this is not an attack on anyone restoring DR.....just a point of view....

Mike, I agree it wouldn't be the exact same Mona Lisa...but if the Mona Lisa fell into disrepair and the best we could get was a repaired version by Monet that would be much better than no Mona Lisa at all.

Bart

Bart,
You are right on with me there....A REPAIRED MONA LISA...not an interpreted Mona Lisa....

[Carl Johnson]

Questions: What role does "tree management" have in Ross restorations, and what impact does the restorer have?  Are there different approaches by different restorers?  A couple of restorations I'm familiar with seem to take different approaches.  In one case, the Ross course was originally built on mostly open land, and as a part of the restoration, playing lines have been opened substantially, although probably not all the way back to the original open plan.  The other, with on-the-ground restoration, left a lot more hazards in the sky.  When old photos are used, I assume they'd show the tree cover.  Does the architect try to go back and replicate that, or not?  What impact does that decision have on the result of the "restoration"?  Or, is it all a question of the the tree huggers at the club and what they'll tolerate?

[Doug Wright]

Questions: What role does "tree management" have in Ross restorations, and what impact does the restorer have?  Are there different approaches by different restorers?  A couple of restorations I'm familiar with seem to take different approaches.  In one case, the Ross course was originally built on mostly open land, and as a part of the restoration, playing lines have been opened substantially, although probably not all the way back to the original open plan.  The other, with on-the-ground restoration, left a lot more hazards in the sky.  When old photos are used, I assume they'd show the tree cover.  Does the architect try to go back and replicate that, or not?  What impact does that decision have on the result of the "restoration"?  Or, is it all a question of the the tree huggers at the club and what they'll tolerate?

Carl,

Hopefully the restoring architects will comment, but I'd think dealing with tree encroachment  would be no different than other aspects that have encroached on the orginal design, such as the green mowing patterns I mentioned above. The Minikahda restoration involved removal of hundreds of trees, and the effect on many holes was striking. Could the Minikahda restoration have been completed without the massive tree removal? Sure, but it would have suffered by comparison. I suspect that tree aficionados on committees can tie one's hands in this matter, and therefore results may vary. In the Minikahda example, it's my understanding that the restoring architect did a good job providing a clear vision at the outset of what the end product would look like. However, it took (and takes) the buy-in from the committees/members to make it happen, and that won't always occur.